The Air Force estimate of $4.2 billion in savings over five years was unreliable and "may overstate or -understate the actual figure," the Government Accountability Office said in a preliminary report to Congress on the decision to retire the fleet.
Air Force leaders have said the service must retire the A-10 due to budget cuts in order to pay for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has told Congress theA-10 is not flexible enough and the service can depend on a mix of other aircraft like the B-1, F-16and F-15 to fulfill the close air support mission.
The report, which was released Thursday, questioned the methods used by the Air Force to determine that retiring the A-10 and giving its close air support mission to other aircraft was cost efficient and would not detract from the vital role of protecting ground troops. Congress has continued to fund the A-10 with annual appropriations over the objections of the Air Force and the Defense Department.
Congress asked the GAO last year to study the Air Force's decision to retire the A-10. Findings throughout the report question and outright reject the service's case to send the revered close air support aircraft to the boneyard.
More
14 comments:
Absolutely not! Who is crazy here? These planed are crucial and some of our best assets! NO OTHER PLANE does the tank and more killer job that these assets do.
Obama is insane and Anti-American. Go from there.
nobody fights with tanks any more. nobody with credibility that is. tanks can't hide from the bombs in the sky.
No other aircraft can offer this type of ground support. If you have ever seen its capabilities as a ground soldier you will understand and value it over all the other far less maneuverable less lethal aircraft that lack the loiter time the A 10 necessarily provides.
Just ask the ground troops, pilots and maintenance teams, both former and current, what they think about the A-10. That shouldn't be too hard.
And while I'm at it, don't be selling or leasing or giving them away to anybody who even remotely stands as a threat to us.
The hog is a ground troops best friend when pinned down. Danger close missions are survived due to it's accuracy speed.
The A-10 was best model for dealing from ground troops, tanks, bunkers and buildings are true ground killers.
Really? Have you been there? Have you seen how emplaced tanks can and do survive aerial bombing? I've seen the A-10 in action. They saved our bacon more than once.
It's incredibly stupid to 'retire' a weapon system that works as well as the A-10.
It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Follow the money.
Who's getting rich from the F-35?
Once in a while, they should listen to the Generals.....or give them the additional money to keep this asset in play. Right now, the choice due to budgeting prevents both.....
It might be old but there has been nothing developed to replace it. Why should the Air Force rely on B1's, F15's and F16's to provide the same services that an A10 does already. This is just like the B52; it's service life has just been extended to 100 years because there has been nothing built to replace its overall capabilities when it comes to payload delivery. Granted B1's and B2's are faster but they don't carry the payload.
Missile's with conventional warheads could do the job too but if a big enough missile is launched two scenarios could play out: one the missile sets off alarms in neighboring country's and in turn everyone goes on alert or two, if the missile falls short or has a mishap hitting something other than its intended target then that would be an equally bad situation. Either way, Pandora's box will be opening.
Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong.
The overpriced/overpromised F-35A JSF ain't quite ready to replace anything yet.
From "War Is Boring"...
"The F-35 was flying 'clean,' with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.
But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. 'Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,' the pilot reported."
The A-10 was and still is the best at what it does. No question. Anyone who's been there, knows that. Pilots and troops will attest to it. Taxpayers don't need to pay extra for systems that offer LESS in performance at a greater price.
the warthog is one of my absolute favorite planes. it is slow, ugly, unwieldy, loud (from the back) with stubby wings. it is basically a titanium bathtub with an ignorant gatling gun sticking out the front with wings strapped on it. all my marines cheered when their butt was on the line and they saw a warthog go wing down and line the enemy up. You dont hear it until it gets close and then you mostly hear the whine of the gun. I love this plane. it would be stupid at best if they retire this plane again. the b1, 15 or 16 cannot do close support like the warthog. it loiters over the field and takes a lot of hits but absorbs the punishment. the b1, 15 or 16 cannot do that. i have even seen most of a wing come off of one and they still make it back.
the enemy also fears that hog. you should see the people jump from their tanks when one was over head. lol. i would too. glad they were ours
dogg
Post a Comment